[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

Chris Messina chris.messina at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 06:48:54 UTC 2009


I would suppose that it would look more like:

OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 1
OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 2
OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT etc

If there were a precedent within the OIDF for needing multiple WGs on
the same spec, it might be worth considering, but I'm not sure that
that's a problem we're going to have in the immediate future. I could
be wrong, but just doesn't seem like a pressing issue compared with
other matters.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp> wrote:
> So, for example, something like
>
> DRAFT OpenID Discovery Extension 1.0?
>
> I am fine with it, but what about other people?
>
> Also, I was wondering if WG and the spec is 1 to 1.
> In many standardization organizations, it is not 1 to 1,
> and sometimes the WG name and the spec it produces
> is completely different. (e.g., SSTC and SAML).
>
> I have got an impression that at OpenID Foundation,
> it is 1 to 1 right now, but is it the right way of doing it?
> (It looks like it will hinder the modularization of the specs.)
>
> =nat
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dick Hardt" <dick.hardt at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:11 PM
> To: <board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>
>> I would suggest having the word DRAFT in all caps on specs that are
>> not approved, but enable the OpenID name to be included so that it is
>> clear that it is intended to be an OpenID specification, as opposed to
>> belonging in some other community.
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>> On 19-Jan-09, at 7:30 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
>>
>>> I support with Martin's sentiments here.
>>>
>>> It seems like the simple approach is not giving a spec a version
>>> number until it's finished. It's one thing if you want to call it
>>> Draft 1, Draft 2, etc... but an x.0 version should be reserved for
>>> final specs, as we did with OAuth before.
>>>
>>> Therefore, rather than it be "Resolution WG", it seems like the useful
>>> verbiage would be "Resolution Draft X". That is, a WG distinction
>>> seems not altogether productive if the desired outcome of such a body
>>> is to produce specs...
>>>
>>> I also would love to see /specs completely redone and would be willing
>>> to volunteer to help on that. It seems that it just hasn't been done
>>> -- not that any one is necessarily at fault.
>>>
>>> I also support putting such content under version control, again, as
>>> we did with the OAuth spec being hosted in Google Code.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>>
>>>> I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt
>>>> the
>>>> "Draft") but
>>>> some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the
>>>> reason
>>>> for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc.
>>>> instead of
>>>> "OpenID Resolution 1.0" seemed to be a necessary and reasonable
>>>> concession to me at the time of creating the motion.
>>>>
>>>> It still is in a discussion period, so if anyone got an opinion
>>>> around this,
>>>> please speak up.
>>>>
>>>> Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out
>>>> http://openid.net/specs/ folder needs any Process document
>>>> amendment so we
>>>> can proceed fairly quicly.
>>>>
>>>> =nat
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have
>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>> to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may
>>>>>> claim
>>>>>> OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's
>>>>>> draft status or
>>>>>> full specification status. */
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are
>>>>> named
>>>>> simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration
>>>>> Extension,
>>>>> OpenID Attribute Exchange).
>>>>>
>>>>> Having to invent another name to use while drafting the
>>>>> specification
>>>>> seems like a needless waste of effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can it not simply be required that the drafts display prominent
>>>>> boilerplate text explaining that the specification is only a
>>>>> draft? It'd
>>>>> also be good to get a policy in place for the expiry of unapproved
>>>>> drafts so
>>>>> that they go away after a period of time. For example, I would
>>>>> argue that we
>>>>> don't need eight historical draft versions of OpenID 2.0 on
>>>>> http://openid.net/specs/ ; having it under version control and
>>>>> tagging the
>>>>> published drafts ought to be sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> board mailing list
>>>>> board at openid.net
>>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> board mailing list
>>>> board at openid.net
>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Messina
>>> Citizen-Participant &
>>>  Open Web Advocate-at-Large
>>>
>>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
>>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
>>> This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>



-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
  Open Web Advocate-at-Large

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private



More information about the board mailing list